Why Frank Underwood is Scarier Than Hannibal Lecter.

[sarcasticwriter]

Welp, I'm cross-posting a comment I made over on cleolinda's recap of Hannibal.

Hey, any excuse to update LJ, no?

I'm actually way more scared of Frank Underwood than I am of Hannibal Lecter. But that's about plausibility.

Because while I really love it, I consider Hannibal to be every bit as much a fantasy as Game of Thrones. Maybe moreso

Comments

[madbard]

As usual, I'm in awe of your ability to articulate film/TV critique.

The psychological plausibility of Frank's murderous motivation was for me somewhat dampened by the physical implausibility of the act itself (which, in contrast, Dexter handles well). It's hard to believe that FU would both be able to manage the delicate timing of pushing someone in front of the train, and perhaps at another level it's hard to believe that he'd rely on such a tricky means of murder. Failure was not an option for him at that point. Was this really the best plan?

[sarcasticwriter]

You know, I'm embarrassed to admit that I never really deeply considered the mechanics of the train-murder. I had a brief moment as he was walking off the platform where I thought, there are cameras all over and he's calmly walking away rather than looking at the accident like everybody else - that's exactly the behavior that drew law enforcement's attention to the Boston marathon bombers.

Plus, it's not just a matter of getting off the platform without being spotted. Even if his face wasn't visible on the platform, LEOs could track him up to the street and probably follow him home on Washington D.C.'s network of security cameras.

After all, the victim wasn't an insurance adjuster or something, she was a nationally-known reporter, and would bear quite a bit of scrutiny.

The timing of the actual act never particularly bothered me, but you have a point - what if he'd been a little late and she'd just bounced off the passing cars?